The way MensRightsActivists is currently organized is that it is simply a reaction to Feminism.

Meaning it would simply be fighting on what the radicals are refering to. If you truely want a movement against the basis of feminism, you must attack the core of female identity. Such as the way they interact with reality itself. This ought to have basis in truth and reality, but is not entirely necessary, as we see this occur at feminism.

So: how to attack the core?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15491274/

https://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/6958

So men in general are more aggressive on the physical plane; meaning they are more likely to commit things on the physical. Men are more likely to kill (mostly noted by feminists); but also more likely to work (eg. construction workers, engeneers, STEM).

Women on the other hand have a different approach to aggression (meaning they handle things differently). On first sight women are not aggressive at all. They do not really hit anyone, nor do they harm anyone; yet it is noted from history that women would rather kill by use of poison than force.

Women are better with emotions, feelings, inter-personal relationships and so on.

So where do women act in a society? Women act on the psychological plane more (best to be noted by use of psychology student statistics in male/female ratio). So let's assume for the moment that there are different kinds of reality fields and men tend to communicate via the physical one while women tend to communicate over another one, which I call the social reality field. So female aggression would rather take place in the social / psychological reality. How would that play out? They would be "passive" aggressive more, meaning that they would rather act on the social (eg. getting their drinks paid for flirtatious behaviour, social-engeneering in general) to get their needs met. This is neither good nor bad. It can be used to benefit someone (women get more public funds for community projects), but also to harm someone (aka: gossiping). Also this behaviour used to be necessary for tribal humans as women are physically weaker (because they were taken more care of, because they are of more value for reproduction). Thus women must find another way to get more ressources for themselfes. And the only real environmental issue was and still is the social reality. Women can fight men with social-engeneering in the social reality field (this usually takes short amounts of time as men are not used to these fields); while when a woman fights another woman (socially) this can take decades.

Women tend to be better in social interactions; this does not mean a man can not be better that a woman, if he trains enough.

Also the nature of these 2 reality fields differs: while you have a direct feedback on the physical plane (you hit someone, he goes to the ground, so no more effort needed); you lack this balancing feature in the social reality (you gossip on someone and they get less social benefits for that; it would only end with absolute annihilation). Also on the social the force is rather to go with all its force into the [concept of the] victim. So let's say you hit someone and you have the feedback of your own arm having a blowback and you feel your own force within your arm returning as part of Newtons third law. Newtons laws of physics do not apply on the social plane. You talk. That's it. You can never tell socially if the one or the other decission would have lead to more success. In physics you can calculate such things precisely.

So the female aggression is by nature out of balance. It would rather need to be balanced by some external force (men and women are (almost) "designed" for each other). The problem is that the aggression of females has turned against the balancing factor for some reason; Nietzsche said it was because of the women who were selected out of the gene pool for their disharmonic nature. Regardless of the reasons, we face a Hydra. You can usually kill a Hydra by use of a sword and a torch (meaning by opposing it and then putting knowledge/kennaz inside). You can kill a Hydra by throwing a rock on top of it (meaning you collapse the system). You ought to be able to starve this Hydra by stoping to give it money only when it complains.

But it not only is a Hydra, it also is a Medusa. Medusa turns men to stone at indirect look (meaning they attack you socially; and this is where men have no clue and thus freeze). At direct look, Medusas kill / utterly transform the opposer at their core.

Being both Hydra and Medusa makes this concept already a Chimera (an order beyond understanding). Every head of this Hydra is its own Medusa. Meaning you must chop off the head not by opposing it the natural male way, but by transforming it from the social plane into a normal human. Then you get out a Pegasus and a Giant (did not research on these concepts as they are of no threat any longer). When you have turned this head of the Hydra into a normal human, you feed it with knowledge on the topic. And this is what I am doing.

If you see any other concepts within our beloved feminism, let me know down in the comments, so we can discuss this.

​

How could a well balanced (and very well needed) social aggression look like?

The men could help the women see more clear when it is enough to fight someone. At times you get caught up in your hate too much, so you miss out on what is right in front of you.

Also women help men similarly when it comes to wars; women tend to be more diplomatic when men would already just smash the shit out of the opponent. This is conserving order; and in between order and chaos (and its constant change) lies the perfect life. Chimeras, of course, being order beyond understanding (Earth being a Chimera as well; though a benefitial one).

​

Men and women face co-evolution together and are stuck for eternity together; what can we do to make it ourselfes as comfortable as humanly possible? Jolly good times for all of us. As far as I can see, women were not served by feminists. I see that feminists did fight for women to have to work and take care of their children, blaming all bad things on men and the patriarchy; while instead it was feminism that created these bad circumstances in the first place.And if a woman speaks up against feminism, she becomes part of the concept of the patriarchy. Trust is the basis of love. Feminists destroy trust in society for all men regarding women. (I regard feminists as genderless; neither male, nor female by nature). Men do fear to be accused of false rape claims. (I tend to say: false rape claims are always possible; so why not face the dragon and have many female friends that can support you in such a case? NOTE: Female is not feminist but its enemy!)

Feminism is an entity (Chimera!) and as such it is prone to fight for its own survival. It dies, though, with the society it eagerly kills currently. Either this, or we stop it before this happens.

​

Blessed be, heartful wishes,

ProveSolution

​

PS: Love is not the ends to all wisdom, but a step further towards it.